A legitimate question about guns

[solara]

I think owning a hand gun or a rifle is pretty much what the 2nd amendment is about, but why the need to own an assault weapon? An ouzi? a sub-machine gun? An automatic with huge ammo clips? I obviously don't know much about guns, but I just don't get why the NRA rabidly defends the right to own an assault weapon and why it is considered a 'right' at all..assault weapons aren't for hunting and one could argue that assault weapons aren't absolutely necessary to defend one's home.. so why?

Anyone have an answer?

Thanks

:patriot:

[slackmaster]

1. The line differentiating civilian weapons from military ones was drawn clearly in 1934

The National Firearms Act.

Read up on the subject.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/

[villager]

5. And surely, every law made in 1934 remains perfect the way it is!

Anticipating and addressing all future circumstances!

Really just another version of "original intent," que no?

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. ZING!!!!

:thumbup:

[slackmaster]

9. The NFA has been enhanced and revised numerous times, by new laws and regulations

Including the Gun Control Act and the Brady Act. And in all those decades, firearm technology hasn't changed very much at all.

You really should read up on the subject before attempting to comment on it.

[villager]

19. I'm glad to hear you support the Brady Act!

And here I thought you dutifully supported the NRA's attempts to roll back every single restriction on weapons ownership there was.

So our only difference is the degree of community limits on senseless weapon proliferation, rather than the concept of it. Glad to hear.

[Statistical]

25. The NRA supported modernizing the background check w/ computer NICS.

This was opposed by the Republican led Brady campaign.

[Atypical Liberal]

68. And crickets chirp.

I think it's funny that when "waiting periods for background checks" became virtually instantaneous, thanks to technology, suddenly the folks who were pushing for them didn't like them anymore. That's because it was obviously not really about vetting firearm owners, but instead trying to make purchasing them as difficult as possible, so as to dissuade people from buying them at all.

[Statistical]

85. Which is the major reason why Brady opposed NICS.

It wasn't on technical merit. It simply eliminated the neccesity of a waiting period. They sold the 5 day waiting period as a requirement for a thorough search of records.

NICS did a more complete search in a matter of seconds.

[X_Digger]

30. My what a pretty straw man you have there.

Unless you care to back it up, n'est-ce pas?

[slackmaster]

32. Thank you for admitting that you had some incorrect assumptions

I appreciate your willingness to learn.

[villager]

34. Now if only that could work in *both* directions...

;-)

[spin]

47. Many pro-RKBA posters on DU support the Brady Act ...

as it is one of the few sensible and effective gun laws passed in the history of our nation.

Unfortunately, many states don't input records into the NICS background check system in a timely manner. One of the worst areas the states are behind in is those who should not be permitted to buy firearms because they suffer from severe mental health issues.

This issue was supposed to have been addressed after the Virginia Tech shooting but still exists.

ONE MILLION MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS NOW IN BRADY BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
Millions more still need to be added
January 07, 2011

Washington, D.C. – Following the Virginia Tech tragedy in April 2007, legislation was passed in December 2007 and signed by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2008 to improve the Brady background check system. Over the past three years, the number of state records of prohibited gun purchasers in the system has increased dramatically. Some states have taken action via state legislation and federal grants, but other states have failed to act.

The number of disqualifying mental illness records submitted from the states and territories to the National Instant Criminal Background Check Systems Index increased significantly, from 402,047 records to 929,254 records, from January 1, 2008 to August 31, 2010. When federal records are added, the total disqualifying mental illness records approaches 1.1 million.

However, research generated by the NICS Improvement Act requirements indicates that millions of relevant records are still missing from the system. The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records should be in the NICS Index based on responses from only 42 of 56 U.S. states and territories.

“The good news is that background checks work. They help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Since 1994, 1.9 million gun purchases by dangerous people have been stopped,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “However, incomplete information from the states puts us all at risk. We need to, and can, do much more to prevent another Virginia Tech.”emphasis added

http://www.emailwire.com/release/55223-ONE-MILLION-MENTAL-HEALTH-RECORDS-NOW-IN-BRADY-BACKGROUND-CHECK-SYSTEM.html

[SteveM]

61. #25 below has corrected you. Again. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. Can you give examples of "..the NRA's attempts to roll back every single restriction..."?

I'm thinking you can't

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Because technically they are not assault weapons

the distinction, not that it makes much difference to me, is that an assault weapon can fire full auto, while these cannot.

And the NRA has become a radical organization. There are people who absolutely should never, ever have access to a kitchen knife, let alone a gun... but when you try to have those reasonable expectations... they go... excuse the pun... ballistic.

This list includes convicted criminals, the mentally ill and of course people under 18... (who at times get access from their adult family members)

And if you take your son hunting with a .22, that is fine, as long as he has a full adult supervision. A .22 is powerful enough for a young man to handle... and it used to be the standard. But engineering has come to the point that some "bigger guns" have less recoil... so there you have it.

I am all for RESPONSIBLE ownership... but the NRA jumped the shark on that one a while ago.

Hubby was talking to a very right winger on this at work. Nobody has a problem with keeping them out of the hands of certain classes... but the NRA is out at it again.

[Statistical]

26. There are no assault weapons which fire full auto.

Assault RIFLES are military grade weapons.
Assault weapons is a bogus anti-gun crusader term for weapons which look scary.

NRS has never opposed retrictions on felons, mentally ill, and minors purchasing firearms.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Did I say otherwise?

And yes the NRA jumped the shark on this about twenty years ago. They are now a RADICAL organization.

[Statistical]

33. Yeah did you read your own post?

"the distinction, not that it makes much difference to me, is that an assault weapon can fire full auto, while these cannot"

Maybe you miked up assault rifle w/ assault weapon but as written it seems to imply assault weapons are both full auto and not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Whatever have a good life, off back to the iggy list you go

Since I did not imply that, but goodbye.

And yes the NRA jumped the shark a long time ago.

[Statistical]

37. "an assault weapon can fire full auto" = false.

It is that simple. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was a typo or mistake.

You made a false statement, claimed you didn't, I provided you the exact quote and you feel the need to put me on ignore. Says a lot about you.

[snooper2]

41. you really put people on ignore when you say that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Yep... I removed almost all my iggy list

so slowly they are going back in.

[SteveM]

63. Corrections for your post...

"assault weapons" is a term of art, infrequently used by armorers, gun writers and the military. The term "assault rifle" references those arms capable of full-auto or select-fire.

If you think that the mentally ill should have more restrictions on the purchase of firearms, then propose a law which protects the mentally ill's Fifth Amendment rights. I agree that convicted criminals should not have guns, but those under 18 own guns by the millions. I owned my first at 12 years-of-age. What's the problem with that?

"A .22 is powerful enough for a young man to handle... and it used to be the standard. But engineering has come to the point that some "bigger guns" have less recoil... so there you have it." What "standard" to you reference? Who established it? Please explain how 'bigger guns' have less recoil, comparing, of course, like actions, construction, weight, etc.

"Nobody has a problem with keeping them out of the hands of certain classes... but the NRA is out at it again." What 'classes' do you reference, and how do those classes that 'most people' have in mind compare with those classes of the NRA. Please pay particular attention to comparing on a criminal record basis, adjudicated mentally-ill basis, and age basis.

[Atypical Liberal]

69. In what way does the NRA not support responsible gun ownership?

And the NRA has become a radical organization. There are people who absolutely should never, ever have access to a kitchen knife, let alone a gun... but when you try to have those reasonable expectations... they go... excuse the pun... ballistic.

This list includes convicted criminals, the mentally ill and of course people under 18... (who at times get access from their adult family members)

And if you take your son hunting with a .22, that is fine, as long as he has a full adult supervision. A .22 is powerful enough for a young man to handle... and it used to be the standard. But engineering has come to the point that some "bigger guns" have less recoil... so there you have it.

I am all for RESPONSIBLE ownership... but the NRA jumped the shark on that one a while ago.

Hubby was talking to a very right winger on this at work. Nobody has a problem with keeping them out of the hands of certain classes... but the NRA is out at it again.

Being an NRA member, I'm confused. All of the literature I have seen clearly indicates that the NRA fully supports keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and insane people (see Project Exile). What is unreasonable about that?

What is the difference between taking your son hunting with a .22 or a .223?

I suspect it depends on the state, but most places have laws where you must be 18 to buy firearms, and 21 to buy handguns. I'm not aware of any NRA position to challenge this.

[beevul]

81. You have it backwards.

You said that "Because technically they are not assault weapons the distinction, not that it makes much difference to me, is that an assault weapon can fire full auto, while these cannot."

Its the "assault rifle" which fires full auto, and the so called "assault weapon" which does not.

Just sayin.

:shrug:

[Euromutt]

95. In military terms, an "assault weapon" is used for breaching fortifications

It includes stuff like Bangalore torpedoes, flamethrowers, satchel charges and this puppy:



That's the Mk153 Shoulder-launched Multi-Purpose Assault Weapon (SMAW), used by the USMC. Note the term "assault weapon" is part of the name. As a destructive device, its possession by private citizens is severely restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934, assuming you could even find one for sale.

In civilian terms, there's no set definition for what constitutes a so-called "assault weapon," but as a rule of thumb, it means a firearm capable only of semi-automatic fire and using a detachable magazine that is a variant of some military design that is capable of burst or "full" automatic fire. Examples include "AR-15"s (based on the design of the M16 assault rifle and M4 carbine), semi-auto-only variants of the AK-47/AKM assault rifle (such as the Romanian WASR, Egyptian Maadi, Chinese MAK-90, etc.), Uzi carbines and pistols (based on the Uzi sub-machine gun), and TEC-9 "pistols" (based on a design for a sub-machine gun that no government was interested in buying).

The term "assault weapon" was coined to deliberately generate confusion with "assault rifles" (like the M16 and AK-series, and the weapon from the name of which the term is derived, the German Sturmgewehr 44 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44), which are, by definition, capable of burst and/or "full" automatic fire. This was compounded by the term "assault pistol" being coined to describe "assault weapons" that were legally handguns, but developed from sub-machine gun designs (such as the TEC-9 and Uzi pistol), whence it was a short step to referring to rifle-type "assault weapons" as "assault rifles," even though that term already existed for a different class of firearms.

[Theobald]

3. Ignorance is curable

Do you know what an automatic weapon is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm
Do you know what a semi-automatice weapon is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm
Do you know what an assault weapon is and do you know what type of weapons the assault weapons ban, banned?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

[spanone]

4. take the cure

[Paladin]

42. The DU Guns Forum Proves You Wrong---Every Single Day. (n/t)

[AlinPA]

45. I prefer the term "guns that shoot a hell of a lot of bullets real fast". The definitions are too

technical.

[spin]

48. What we have here is an example of the failure of American education. (n/t)

:sarcasm:

[SteveM]

67. Comparing "full auto" with "semi-auto" is technical? Really? nt

[AlinPA]

75. The argument is a technical one. They both shoot bullets fast.

[SteveM]

79. With all respect, "both shoot bullets fast" is sloppy thinking. nt

[beevul]

86. Thats not really accurate.

An assault RIFLE shoots them really fast by default when its selector switch is set to full auto.

A so called "assault weapon" has no selector swirch, and no fully automatic mode, and only shoots bullets fat IF someone repeatedly pulls a trigger fast.


Its not as simple as a distinction without a difference.

[Straw Man]

76. Terminology

I prefer the term "guns that shoot a hell of a lot of bullets real fast". The definitions are too

technical.

So would you be comfortable with locking people up on the basis of such a definition? Some would.

I find it bizarre that people with virtually no knowledge of firearms feel that they are competent to judge what restrictions on what classes of firearms are "reasonable." It really calls into question their good faith in the discussion. I can only conclude that what they really want is a total ban, rendering the finer distinctions moot.

[AlinPA]

78. What? "comfortable with locking people up on the basis of such a definition"? That's

a huge stretch from what I said. I'm just sick of the going over and over the differences in those weapons, and not interested in locking up anyone unless they shoot people with their guns.

[Straw Man]

90. Sorry...

I was commenting on the tendency of some to ask for a reintroduction of the "assault weapons" ban, including stiff prison terms, when they really don't have a clear idea of what it is they are banning. It's kind of like the old "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it" rationale.

I appears that I misinterpreted your honest expression of "tech fatigue." My apologies.

[SteveM]

65. For some, ignorance is ideological. nt

[Kolesar]

America has some bad traditions going back to when we were a frontier nation

And beat the hell out of the natives and the Mexicans. There is also a cultural attribute of self-reliance, hating outsiders, and general pissiness.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. And this one does not go that far, 'xept in Hollywood

gun ownership in the old west was MUCH lower that it is today.

[Kolesar]

51. So it was the John Ford movies that did it?

bang, bang, ricochet

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. The myth of the wild west started a little before John Ford

but not by much. I'd say the WIld West Shows done by Cody started that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_West_Shows

Yes some people were well armed... and by that I mean a rifle, or a shotgun, and a side arm. Compare this to Americans today.. who tend to own more than one firearm... and five to ten is not that unusual. Gun ownership is at an all time high.

But most people cold not afford either a side arm (which would be stupid) or a rifle\shotgun. And when they did, they preferred the latter, as you can use it to put food on table.

There is more, ammo was unreliable, so people packed their own. And it was very expensive. These days I can go blow off a box of ammo, no problem. Most people in the wild west could not afford to do that. Ammo was really expensive.

There have been studies by historians looking at things like deeds and other legal documents. Guns are just not that prevalent.

[beevul]

83. Uh..

"There have been studies by historians looking at things like deeds and other legal documents."

You wouldn't be referring to Michael A. Bellesiles discredited work: Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture

Would you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Bellesiles

[Straw Man]

77. The Old West

gun ownership in the old west was MUCH lower that it is today.

If you're talking about the average number of firearms per capita, yes. If you're talking about the percentage of households that were armed (containing at least one gun), then I have my doubts. Firerms were an essential tool of frontier life, such as it was.

Can you cite a source for your data?

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. I've done that in the past

you too can use the google. Suffice it to say it is solid academic work.

[X_Digger]

88. I hope you don't claim Michael Bellesiles as a source..

About as 'solid' as jello in a blender.

[Straw Man]

91. Good form dictates...

...that the person who makes the claim provides the support. Why should I do your homework?

Or we could do it this way: I say...

gun ownership in the old west was MUCH HIGHER than it is today.

...and you prove me wrong.

[NewMoonTherian]

93. I just have to know...

why you threw self-reliance in with hating outsiders and general pissiness. In my opinion, self-reliance is a virtue every human should be striving toward. I also don't think it's a virtue that's embraced by many Americans today. Have you seen how crowded the supermarkets are, or how much cash the utility companies are raking in? Those are two things that make me very, very sad about our society.

[sharesunited]

6. They're extremists. n/t

[Edweird]

10. You've been fed a lot of 'gun grabber' BS. It shows in your post.

Educate yourself. Use impartial sources such as the DOJ and FBI stats - it will show how dishonest some are in furthering their agenda.

[Motown_Johnny]

11. The 2nd amendment does not mention hunting, it is for the defense of a free state

and if the NRA members think they need assault rifles to defend freedom then that is what they have a right to argue.

I disagree, I think the 2nd amendment is about the ability for each individual state to defend itself from the federal government. The Civil War ended that argument for me. States don't get to take up arms against the Federal Government anymore and the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant.

[CTyankee]

15. You make an important point. The Civil War was decided by two armies, not

the rear guard action of staunch local militia members and their compatriots, as lovely as that romantic notion is to some people.

And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, remember the old bumper sticker "The West wasn't won by a registered gun"? Well, it was won by the U.S. army of its day and their guns were about as close to registered as you are going to get...

[jtuck004]

24. People...bear arms...

A state cannot "bear" arms. It can keep them in an armory, can warehouse them, can regulate them.

But a state cannot "bear" arms - that takes individuals.

so "The right of the _people_...and bear arms..." does it for me. People, including me, have a right to responsible ownership and use of our guns.

We also have a responsiblity to use our freedoms wisely, a right to use our heads in the living of our lives. So the removal of 31 bullet clips from the civilian population is a laudable goal.

But if anyone thinks they are going to do more than slow things down for some, they are kidding themselves. Take a visit to a really hard core state prison and ask to see their display of inmate-produced weapons - ask to see the guns they made, complete with shells. Then think about what people can make in the society outside those doors...because one of these days it's going to be a bigger bomb (McVeighs killed 169 with fertilizer and diesel fuel) or a biochem attack, make this one look puny by comparison.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, however.

On the other hand, given how many people income inequality kills every day through hunger, homelessness, or unemployment - perhaps we would be better served figuring out how to wrest control of our lives from them...

[Statistical]

28. States don't have right. They have powers.

People have rights.

People having access, knowledge, an experience with firearms leads to the ability for the state to deploy an effective militia.
The British didn't seize weapons from the state, they seized them from the PEOPLE to prevent the militias from mobilizing.

Now no state effectively uses this power they are granted by the Constitution (not the 2A) but that doesn't make the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE (the only entity with rights) go away.

[beevul]

50. I beg to differ sir.

"States don't get to take up arms against the Federal Government anymore and the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant."

It remains a restriction on the federal government, as intended by the framers.

[badtoworse]

52. Are you familiar with the Heller decision?

You should read it. The SCOTUS unanimously agreed that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right. The time for opinions on what the 2nd Amendment protects ended in June 2008 - it is now settled law.

[Taitertots]

12. "Assault Weapon" is a generic term that cover most modern firearms design

Automatic weapons are very well regulated and have been since the 1930's. This was and is supported by the NRA. Just like the NICS, where dealers have to background check gun purchasers.

"Assault Weapons" covers all the most popular and effective designs for hunting, sport shooting, and defense. That is the answer to your question.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. A cop I know who is ex- military tells me assault rifles are military rifles

not hunting or sport shooting weapons



I defer to his judgment since I don't know that much about guns.

[Statistical]

23. Assault RIFLES are not the same thing as Assault WEAPONS.

Assault RIFLES are military grade hardware and it is almost impossible for a civilian to get one. All new ones have been banned since 1986 and massive restrictions have been in place since 1934.

Assault WEAPONS is a bogus made up term that is based on the LOOK of the rifle not the effectiveness. It would be like banning cars with spoilers or chrome rims as "assault VEHICLLES".

Why the similarity in terms. Your confusion is intentional. The anti-gun crusaders used the similarity is words to mislead the public.

The "scary looking black rifle ban of 1996" wouldn't have quite as much support would it?

[shadowrider]

49. Don't assault rifles and assault weapons have the shoulder thing that goes up?

:hide:

[Taitertots]

35. Assault rifles and assault weapons are two different things but often look indistinguishable

Assault rifles: Select fire, (fully automatic capability) Pull trigger, Bang, bang, bang, bang....
Assault weapons: Semi-automatic, Pull trigger, Bang, Pull trigger, bang....

Assault rifles: Highly regulated
Assault weapons: Moderately regulated

Assault rifles: Military rifles
Assault weapons: Civilian rifles, the most popular and efficient designs for hunting, sport shooting, and defense.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

13. Lots of people hunt with "assault weapons"

If you go by he common definition of "assault weapon" (guns with "x" amount of external features) they are the most popular rifle in america by both ownership and purchase rate. Especially AR15-type rifles. They are extremely popular to hunt with because they are very accurate and easily accept a wide variety of scopes and personal comfort acessories (grips/stocks/lights/etc...)

And, while you don't feel them necessary for it, an assault weapon can efefctively defend one's home just as well as most any other gun. They are very capable... as evidence by your argument about them apparently being too capable.

Also, "assault weapon" was a political term invented in the early 90's to confuse citizens with "assault rifle". Assault rifles are fully automatic - like the UZI and Machineguns you described in your post and have been tightly registered and regulated since 1934. "Assault weapons" were legally defined to be semiautomatic (no different operatino than typical hunting rifles). It was felt that if they could trick people into conflating "assault weaopns" with the already controlled full auto "assault rifles"... that the AWB would have a better chance of passing. They (anti-gun politicians) purposefully tried to trick america into banning semiautomatic rifles based on nothing ther than cosmetic and exterior features.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. what do people hunt with a 5.66mm version of an M-16 (other than people?)

It is a pretty small caliber for a hunting rifle




When I lived in Colorado I knew many many many.....many hunters and none of them owned anything like an assault rifle.


I knew people who used .50 caliber muzzle loaders and others who would simply hunt with a bow but note with an AR-15 or anything like it.



Hell, I even lived and worked at a lodge on the Colorado river where hunters would stay and I can't remember ever seeing anything like an assault rifle. I had my dog haul an entire spine and rib cage of a deer out of the woods and up onto my porch once, but never saw an assault rifle. (that poor dog, it was such a great find for him and must have taken him hours to haul that thing, and I threw it out)

[Statistical]

21. AR-15 platform is available in a variety of calibers.

.223 (most civilian variants are chambered for .223 not 5.56) is an optimal varmint caliber.

" I can't remember ever seeing anything like an assault rifle."
Civilian semi-autos aren't assault rifles. You knew that right?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. Small deer, boar, ground hogs & prairi dogs, varmints... stuff like that.

It's a very good trajectory (fast & flat) and has decent power when using hunting loads. Good out to about 500-600yds. Depends on the state - some have minimum caliber requirements. I agree that .223 is a bit small for a good sized deer but people do it with good success.

[SteveM]

70. You probably are thinking of the AR-15 and its derivatives...

In some states any center-fire cartridge is legal for deer; this would include the 5.66mm round. While I agree this round is not reliable for shooting (and recovering) a deer, the SAME AR-15 platform is now made to accommodate rounds up to and including the .308, and these are more than ample for deer-hunting. You can now purchase numerous AR-15 platformed rifles designed (even camouflaged) for hunting, and gun writers now predict that these types of rifles will supplant the bolt-action rifles in the field within a generation or less.

Correction: "I can't remember ever seeing anything like an assault rifle ."

I have hunted for years and have not seen "assault rifles" used for hunting either. These are FULL-AUTO firearms and are illegal for hunting use. I HAVE seen SEMI-AUTOMATIC firearms used in the field for years. These include the hoary old Remington 742 semi-auto in .30-'06, and numerous AR-15s, and AK-47s, and SKS weapons, all loaded for at least serviceable deer-sized calibers; last year, a hunter staying at the same farmhouse where I was hunting took a deer with an SKS.

[PavePusher]

71. AR uppers can be had chambered for 6.5mm and 6.8mm cartridges.

Or .450 Bushmaster, heck anything that will fit in the magazine dimensions. The limiting factor is generally the overall length of the cartridge.

The AR-10, the older, bigger brother of the AR-15, is generally found in 7.62X51mm (or .308) and other varieties of similar-length rounds.

Both can be excellent hunting platforms: accurate, light-weight, durable, modular.

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx

[GSLevel9]

16. oh god not again....

Let's start with vocabulary.

Automatic weapons have been ILLEGAL in the US for the better part of a century.

And now a lesson.

Which one is the "assault rifle"?



or is THIS evil looking one the "assault rifle"?



Bottom line? They are the SAME rifle. Yup. Meet the Ruger Mini-14 rifle, the Ruger Mini 14 "Ranch Rifle" as it's called. It's been used for DECADES in the back of a pickup truck on ranches and farms to persuade vermin not to annoy the rancher/farmer. The bottom one is "dressed up" with a pistol grip and collapsible stock and a faux "flash suppressor/muzzle brake".

Let me tell you how it works since many here are woefully ignorant as to how they work. You pull the trigger and a single round is fired, the rifle loads the next round into the chamber for you so if you'd like to fire a second round you must AGAIN pull the trigger. The rifle on top has a 5 round magazine with 10 round and 20 round magazines optional.

Bottom line/ "Assault Weapon" is the made-up fairy tale phrase made up bu people who just don't like guns OR don't like the "kinds" of people who like guns.

It's laughable... people want to ban a rifle because it "looks" scary. Like it or not... firearm legislation ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN so give it up.

Silly.

[Paladin]

38. Those "Scary" Looking Features Are Why Guys Like You Buy Such Weapons. (n/t)

[GSLevel9]

39. so what??

If we buy firearms BECAUSE they look like military weapons or because they look "scary".... what's the difference?

It's LEGAL and that's the end of story. All these "People for a Perfect World" types are clueless.

[X_Digger]

44. So having a collapsible stock is bad, how?

Having a finish that doesn't get scratched up is terrible in what way?

Having a gun be 25% lighter is a problem?

Using a gun that's easier to maintain, more accurate, and suits more uses is bad in what way?



Rock on, culture warrior, rock on.

[SteveM]

72. You act like a psychologist, but you aren't...

The reason most folks buy similar platforms is because of the ergonomics of carrying and shouldering the weapon -- far better than standard bolt-action rifles.

[Straw Man]

74. So...

Those "Scary" Looking Features Are Why Guys Like You Buy Such Weapons.

...are you in favor of banning certain firearms based on their appearance?

[TRJuan]

17. Why should republicants be the only ones with assault weapons?

I don't care what the NRA says, but if republicants own them, I want some of my own to protect myself.

[Statistical]

20. There is no such thing as an assault weapon.

It was a made up term to make the AWB popular. "Scary black rifle ban" wouldn't have ralied enough support.

Can you even define what an "assault weapon" is? If you can't think about that for a second. You are advocating someone not have something that you can't even define what it is. Doesn't that give you pause? Doesn't that make you consider that maybe you have been manipulated?

[Paladin]

40. No Such Thing As An Assault Weapon......

....and yet you're demanding that somebody define what an assault rifle is? You're the one doing the manipulating here, pal. You're only fooling yourself......

[Statistical]

43. You couldn't even get one sentence before confusing assault WEAPON and assault RIFLE.

Assault RIFLE = automatic military grade weapon
Assault WEAPON = classification of weapons based on cosmetics, no more or less dangerous than any other weapon.

However you inadvertent error shows have clever the Republican led Brady Campaign is.
Do you think it was a chance decision to name this "class" of weapons based on cosmetics (assault WEAPON) so similarly to military hardware (assault RIFLE)?

[SteveM]

73. You are fooling yourself, and playing a dishonest manipulation game...

"assault rifle" is a term generally recognized by firearms experts. "Assault weapons" is a term of art used by gun-controller/prohibitionist/culture warriors who want to confuse the public. They have succeeded, and you continue the blatant dishonesty. And you know it.

[X_Digger]

27. Here's a pictoral difference..

versus




Same caliber, same rate of fire, same ability to accept detachable magazines.

It would be like saying that you want to decrease street racing, so you're going to ban spoilers and chrome rims.


eta: and quite a lot of folks use 'assault weapons' to hunt:

[Statistical]

29. Spoilers and chrome rims. Everyone knows those are "assault cars".

Favorite weapon on criminals everywhere. The US even exports "assault cars" to Mexico. It is big problem there.

[ileus]

58. I have both of those except my mini is Stainless

[guitar man]

53. One of these things is not like the others

This is a little test I cooked up. 3 of these weapons are moderate to low power civilian semi-automatic rifles. One is a full automatic with considerably more power, requires a federal license with all the jumping through hoops and the tax stamp etc. to own, not to mention about $12k to buy one last time I looked. See if you can pick it out. ;)
A

B

C

D

[badtoworse]

54. C looks liks an M14

[guitar man]

55. :)

;)

[RSillsbee]

57. But it could be a Springfield M1A NT

[badtoworse]

59. I thought M1's were clip fed

This one appears to be magazine fed.

[guitar man]

60. M1 is clip fed

The M1A is the civilian semi-auto version of the m-14 more or less

[RSillsbee]

84. The Springfield M1A

Is a civilian model of the M-14.

You're thinking M1 Garand.

Although as an old Army buddy of mine used to say "Every thing in the damn Army is either an M1 or an M2"

[guitar man]

62. yes it could

The idea is to show that the "scariest looking" rifles aren't necessarily the "most dangerous" if you will. The un-savvy segment of the population always seems to get caught up in what they look like, not what they can do.

Actually, I'm a little shocked and dismayed to find so much prejudice against black rifles on a progressive forum :spray:

[GreenStormCloud]

66. Easy. "C" The M-14 was designed for select-fire. N/T

[Atypical Liberal]

64. Why assault weapons.

I think owning a hand gun or a rifle is pretty much what the 2nd amendment is about, but why the need to own an assault weapon?

In order to answer the question about what kinds of weapons the second amendment is about, we have to understand what the second amendment was intended to do.

As most people learned in grade school, our government was constructed as a system of checks and balances. This is why we have separate branches of government for the executive, legislative, and judicial systems. This was an attempt to decentralize power. They did this because the knew that power corrupts, and they were afraid of power concentrating in any one part of the government, as it could be used to oppress.

This decentralization of power also carried over to the military. Originally, there was to be no standing federal army. Instead, the States were each to have their own militias, made up of the people of the states, led by officers from those states. The logic here was that these State armies would thus be beholden to the interest of their own State, and it would be hard to get them to cooperate in concert to oppress any other State or States. Likewise, it would take a concerted and coordinated effort for them to team together to launch expeditions as a nation.

The people of the States were intended to function as infantry. This means that they would need to be armed with small arms appropriate for use as infantry weaponry. This was so they could either take the place of, or at least counter, federal infantry power.

So there is your answer: The second amendment protects weaponry that is appropriate for use as small arms suitable for infantry use. Civilian variants of the AK-47 and AR-15 are thus precisely the sort of weapons the second amendment was designed to protect.

[solara]

89. Thanks, I think I am beginning to understand

I didn't mean to offend anyone with my use of the term "assault weapons" I guess I have always thought of automatics, or semi-automatics as assault weapons. My bad. I just never understood the need for firing lots and lots of bullets very quickly, unless lots of bullets were being fired at you.

Thanks for all the responses. This is definitely a topic I need to read more about.

:patriot:

[YllwFvr]

87. I agree

owning a handgun or rifle is a lot of what what the 2a is about.

Problem your having is realizing that those "assault rifles" you are referring to are just "rifles", no assault in there.

[krispos42]

92. "assault weapon" is a perjorative talking point, like death tax

Or partial-birth abortion.

There is no technical definition of an "assault weapon", so it basically means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. "Assault rifle" has a technical definition, as does "submachine gun". "Assault weapons", not so much.

The 1993 Assault Weapons Ban basically defined an "assault weapon" as either a rifle, shotgun, or pistol, that was semi-automatic in function (fires one shot per trigger pull and automatically ejects spent rounds and loads new ones) that had more than one item from a list of cosmetic features.

For example, if I had a semi-automatic rifle that had a removable magazine, I could have ONE of the following features:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher adapter

So, if I bought this rifle, a Ruger Mini-14...



I was not buying an "assault weapon".


But...




If I then removed the wooden stock from my Mini-14 and replaced it with a new "tactical" stock with a pistol grip and a folding butt, like so:



Well, now it's an "assault weapon". I'm a deranged militiaman that wants to see Obama's long-form birth certificate and go back on the gold standard.


The top gun and the bottom gun are the same gun. Same serial number. No mechanical differences whatsoever. Operates the same, loads the same, shoots the same ammunition, etc. I'm just unbolting a piece of wood and bolting on a piece of plastic. Except now it's an "assault weapon".

So it's really arbitrary. During the ban, companies were importing converted AK-47s and grinding off the bayonet lug. Ta-da! Twenty seconds with a grinder and they went from "assault weapon" to "sporting rifle".

:shrug:

Rifles are like any other tool... optimized for different situations, with generous overlap. A deer rifle may be optimized for that purpose, but you can still use it effectively for target shooting and self-defense. An AR-15 might be equipped for self-defense, but they're also plenty accurate for target shooting and with the right bullet can be used on game as large as deer, where legal. An AR-15 is also relatively easy to reconfigure for larger, more powerful calibers.



I hoped this helped.

[Francis Marion]

94. To answer your question will take some work on your part.

First, the term 'assault weapon' is a negative term whose intent is to bias your perception against the object it purports to define. This term is successful because people who don't shoot do not know how firearms work. You should know about a topic in some depth if you are to decide upon it one way or the other.

Inform yourself- I suggest this in good faith and to increase your understanding. Your question is a good start. As framed, it appears that you are unclear about the function and nature of firearms which people own in the US.

1) Very few people own machine guns. Machine guns are what you see glamorized in Hollywood films by actors who don't want you to own guns. Machine guns fire many rounds, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang... for as long as the trigger is held down.

2) People who say that they want to take away 'assault weapons' ARE NOT talking about machine guns. They are talking about semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles have been sold to Regular People and used for hunting, competition, even for US Military service.

This is the point:
When they say,
'Let's ban 'assault weapons!',
they REALLY MEAN,
'Let's ban semi-automatic rifles!'

The uninformed public makes the mistake which the 'assault weapon' opponent hoped they would:
'Yeah! let's ban those machine guns, nobody 'needs' those!'

So what is a semi-automatic rifle? That just means that you get one shot each time you pull the trigger. Not a machine gun.

Semiautomatic technology is not new, is not scary, is not unfit for The People's Second
Amendment.

What's a submachine gun? Well, that's not something you can go to Walmart and buy. They're already very tightly controlled by law, and very expensiveto buy and own, and thus are owned by very few people in the US- just like all our other machine guns. Since the 1930's and the 1960's, it has been difficult and expensive to be a machine gun owner, for all people except for your local PD, the military, and for Hollywood. Yes, the movie industry is exempt from machine gun restrictions as applied to a 'regular' person. The PD and the military I understand, but Hollywood?

Semiautomatic rifles probably describe half of the rifles people buy these days, and half of the rifles in their gun safe. They are very common.

So when they want to ban 'assault weapons', ignorant people think that's for machine guns.

'Assault weapon' bans are designed to take away up to half of the rifles now in the hands of the American People.

Why do we need 'huge ammo clips?'

Why do you need a V6 or two gallons of milk or 30 books on your bookshelf, or 20 acres of land? Do you NEED that stuff? Or is it your right to own property, within the law, and as YOU deem fit?

The point is, you had better hold onto the Freedom you have, jealously, because once you let it go, it's very difficult to get back. If you tolerate the treatment of a Right as if it was instead a privilege, then something of value was just lost, and a damaging misunderstanding threatens other rights which remain.

The argument is not whether you NEED a particular object: instead, the government simply has no business infringing the right of the people to own and use arms. It's supposed to take a trial by a jury of your peers before society takes a right away, or some other due process of law. Not simply by government fiat, applied to everybody or to anybody. What if there was a law passed that women were no longer to have the right to refuse to incriminate themselves in court? Or that women could not vote? 'But you can't do that- I have my fifth Amendment rights, my nineteenth Amendment rights!' Of course you do have those rights, and you expect to be able to exercise them. And if we elect Klansmen, bigots, or morons to office, despite your Constitutional rights, they may pass laws which deny you your rights.

It is the same with infringements of gun rights, such as an 'assault weapon' ban. 'But I have a right to keep and bear arms!' 'Ha ha,' Bill Clinton and George Bush both just laugh and do what they want.

And anyway- semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are very suitable for home defense. You do not want to concede any advantage to a home intruder, or arbitrarily degrade your options; ten bullets are fine, but 30 are even better in a rifle. 30 in a pistol starts to get unwieldy, in my opinion, but then again, that's our choice to make if we are Free People, and if the government has to respect our gun rights.

Ask a friend or family member to take you out to shoot. Gun owners like to help out. Ask questions about how things work, and try them out. This will increase your understanding, and will put you in a position to make more informed decisions. I hope that you will choose to support gun rights, but at any rate, decide for yourself with adequate input.

Lastly, the Second Amendment does not pertain to hunting or to having fun. It cements the idea that The People are to have access to arms, period. This is what distinguishes us from people who are slaves.